Hello,
TL;DR: we shouldn’t use the term smartphones but instead simply refer to mobiles (or mobile devices).
You may have seen it on FSFE’s last newsletter (coming to non-fellows soon) or on some other materials. Sometimes we use the term “smartphone” to indicate mobile computers that we carry around us and that we can use to phone, text, email, get spied on, play, etc.
I don’t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that it’s just a marketing invention. What’s wrong with you if you haven’t got a smartphone: maybe you’re just dumb, right?
I feel we should restrain from using this marketing term. Especially, I think it’s misleading to say that the phone is smart or for smart people. Moreover, the way these phones operating systems are designed by contrast to classic operating systems, they are actually less “smart”: the interesting computation does not happen on the device itself, but on the Google/Apple/Amazon/etc. server.
I also think that it’s not accurate to call these phones any more, since they’re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term "mobiles" or "mobile devices".
Best,
On 04/07/14 14:31, Hugo Roy wrote:
Hello,
TL;DR: we shouldn’t use the term smartphones but instead simply refer to mobiles (or mobile devices).
You may have seen it on FSFE’s last newsletter (coming to non-fellows soon) or on some other materials. Sometimes we use the term “smartphone” to indicate mobile computers that we carry around us and that we can use to phone, text, email, get spied on, play, etc.
I don’t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that it’s just a marketing invention. What’s wrong with you if you
Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer
haven’t got a smartphone: maybe you’re just dumb, right?
I feel we should restrain from using this marketing term. Especially, I think it’s misleading to say that the phone is smart or for smart people. Moreover, the way these phones operating systems are designed by contrast to classic operating systems, they are actually less “smart”: the interesting computation does not happen on the device itself, but on the Google/Apple/Amazon/etc. server.
This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely within the phone and they deserve more recognition.
I also think that it’s not accurate to call these phones any more, since they’re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term "mobiles" or "mobile devices".
Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would otherwise say something worse, like iPhone
I also look forward to the day when people say tablet instead of iPad. Amongst other things, a growing number of people never take tablet devices out of their bag at an airport if the sign only tells people to remove iPads and laptops from their bags.
Regards,
Daniel
↪ 2014-07-04 Fri 14:40, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au:
I don’t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that it’s just a marketing invention. What’s wrong with you if you
Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer
I think you’re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that’s not what the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination of “smart” and “phone” and there’s no denying that this combination is pure marketing. Another illustration of this is how new objects are being sold with “smart” in front of it: Smart Tv, Smar fridge, smart fork and whatnot.
haven’t got a smartphone: maybe you’re just dumb, right?
I feel we should restrain from using this marketing term. Especially, I think it’s misleading to say that the phone is smart or for smart people. Moreover, the way these phones operating systems are designed by contrast to classic operating systems, they are actually less “smart”: the interesting computation does not happen on the device itself, but on the Google/Apple/Amazon/etc. server.
This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely within the phone and they deserve more recognition.
It does not invalidate the premise that the operating system is not designed to run autonomously. We have to put a lot of efforts into modifying it so that it’s true.
A good example is the recent development of Google Play Services and the Google Cloud Messenging (sic?) layers that are proprietary and connected and on which more and more Android Apps have to rely on.
The object that’s marketed as the “smartphone” is sold; not what you are doing with it as a free software hacker ;-)
I also think that it’s not accurate to call these phones any more, since they’re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term "mobiles" or "mobile devices".
Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would otherwise say something worse, like iPhone
At least calling an iPhone an iPhone is accurate and noone’s fooled that it’s a marketing brand.
I also look forward to the day when people say tablet instead of iPad. Amongst other things, a growing number of people never take tablet devices out of their bag at an airport if the sign only tells people to remove iPads and laptops from their bags.
That’s not a huge problem.
In FSFE, we’re not going to refer to tablets as "iPad", we just say "tablet" and people understand what that means. I’m just suggesting that for the smaller-than-tablets devices, we use accurate terms like "mobiles" instead of "smartphones".
Le 04/07/2014 15:42, Hugo Roy a écrit :
I think you’re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that’s not what the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination of “smart” and “phone” and there’s no denying that this combination is pure marketing.
Bonjour, that's why I call them "idiotphone". I could say "cretinphone". I've heard another idea, but not remembering it. Another accurate word would be "pollutingphone".
Not really sure what you're achieving by calling it either a smartphone, or mobile device in all honesty. Yes, it's a marketing ploy in many ways but so are many things we take for granted. I also think for the average consumer, the term smartphone helps them differentiate. I know many people who don't want a smartphone, they want a basic phone so avoid anything called a smartphone. It's simply a label to describe the handset, albeit slightly misleading. In fairness, to the end user they are smarter than they were twenty years ago. Siri is AI to some extent, people regard this as smarter. Automation = smarter to some people.
I cannot see what is achieved, objectively, by calling it something else in this scenario. Nobody owns a monopoly on the term smartphone as opposed to some terms such as all vacuum cleaners being called 'Hoovers'.
*This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments. *
On 4 July 2014 14:48, Stephane Ascoet Stephane.Ascoet@ac-orleans-tours.fr wrote:
Le 04/07/2014 15:42, Hugo Roy a écrit :
I think you’re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a
smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that’s not what the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination of “smart” and “phone” and there’s no denying that this combination is pure marketing.
Bonjour, that's why I call them "idiotphone". I could say "cretinphone". I've heard another idea, but not remembering it. Another accurate word would be "pollutingphone".
-- Bien cordialement, Stephane Ascoet
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 04/07/14 15:42, Hugo Roy wrote:
↪ 2014-07-04 Fri 14:40, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au:
I don’t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that it’s just a marketing invention. What’s wrong with you if you
Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer
I think you’re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that’s not what the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination of “smart” and “phone” and there’s no denying that this combination is pure marketing. Another illustration of this is how new objects are being sold with “smart” in front of it: Smart Tv, Smar fridge, smart fork and whatnot.
Ok, so "smart" is convenient marketing but if we want to refer to such a phone, as distinct from a legacy mobile, just using the word "mobile" may not be sufficient
Is there any other terms that could be used?
haven’t got a smartphone: maybe you’re just dumb, right?
I feel we should restrain from using this marketing term. Especially, I think it’s misleading to say that the phone is smart or for smart people. Moreover, the way these phones operating systems are designed by contrast to classic operating systems, they are actually less “smart”: the interesting computation does not happen on the device itself, but on the Google/Apple/Amazon/etc. server.
This, too, is not universally true. Many good apps do run entirely within the phone and they deserve more recognition.
It does not invalidate the premise that the operating system is not designed to run autonomously. We have to put a lot of efforts into modifying it so that it’s true.
A good example is the recent development of Google Play Services and the Google Cloud Messenging (sic?) layers that are proprietary and connected and on which more and more Android Apps have to rely on.
The object that’s marketed as the “smartphone” is sold; not what you are doing with it as a free software hacker ;-)
I agree that is a disturbing trend and it is not something that anybody should be comfortable with. I'm not trying to deny that at all.
I also think that it’s not accurate to call these phones any more, since they’re a lot more. So I suggest we just use the term "mobiles" or "mobile devices".
Personally, I prefer to hear somebody say smartphone when they would otherwise say something worse, like iPhone
At least calling an iPhone an iPhone is accurate and noone’s fooled that it’s a marketing brand.
Not quite what I was getting at - many people are actually using the term iPhone to refer to any type of smartphone and this appears to be worse than using the term smartphone
↪ 2014-07-04 Fri 15:53, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au:
On 04/07/14 15:42, Hugo Roy wrote:
↪ 2014-07-04 Fri 14:40, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au:
I don’t know how you feel about the term, but we can agree that it’s just a marketing invention. What’s wrong with you if you
Not quite - I think it serves to differentiate phones that can run apps from those that only act as firmware
In other words, a smartphone is a basic phone + a PDA/pocket computer
I think you’re missing the point of the discussion. I know what a smartphone refers to the object you describes, but that’s not what the term smartphone means in itself. Smartphone is a combination of “smart” and “phone” and there’s no denying that this combination is pure marketing. Another illustration of this is how new objects are being sold with “smart” in front of it: Smart Tv, Smar fridge, smart fork and whatnot.
Ok, so "smart" is convenient marketing but if we want to refer to such a phone, as distinct from a legacy mobile, just using the word "mobile" may not be sufficient
Is there any other terms that could be used?
Depending on the context, you might not need to differentiate 2010s phones from 2000s phones (that’s true most of the time). I don’t use a special word to make a distinction between a laptop from 2014 and a laptop from 1992.
However, in the past we would talk about “mobile phones” or “phones” -- which does not make much sense any more because these objects have improved to a point that their primary use might not be to make phone calls any more. Which is why sticking to “*phones” is not accurate.
Mobile devices is, I think, clear enough. Or mobile computing devices.
If however you need to specifically make a differentiation between phones from 2000s and phones from 2010s, well, let’s get creative -- but I don’t think we need to call them “smartphones.”
Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org, Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:04:51 +0200:
Mobile devices is, I think, clear enough. Or mobile computing devices.
(modern) handheld computers
Which is quite specific. I remember the term handheld computer from the 90s where it was used to describe PDAs. Today it would include tablets as well.
Also the terms "portable" and "handheld" other than mobile make clear, that the devices do neither move by themselves nor require equipment to be moved (like i.e. a mobile home).
If however you need to specifically make a differentiation between phones from 2000s and phones from 2010s, well, let’s get creative -- but I don’t think we need to call them “smartphones.”
At different occasions I have heard the term dumbphone to refer to old and contemporary phones with a comparatively simple firmware stack: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbphone
Ahoy hoy *,
If however you need to specifically make a differentiation between phones from 2000s and phones from 2010s, well, let’s get creative -- but I don’t think we need to call them “smartphones.”
How about "touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing devices"? ;)
But joking aside, in Austria I don't encounter this problem too often since most people still call either phone simply "Handy" and only use the term "smartphone" when they want to emphasize that it is… a "touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing device running Apps"
Maybe one could use mobile device for the TBCEMCDRA and ye goode olde "cell phone" for the non-TB non-CE MD not RA. I've also heard them be referred to as "dumbphones" (which only plays into the problem Hugo was addressing) and "feature phones", which is OK I guess.
Regards, Simon
Simon Hornbachner lfodh@fsfe.org, Fri, 04 Jul 2014 16:41:37 +0200:
How about "touch-based cloud-enabled mobile computing devices"? ;)
I believe we should be very careful, not to take away the conclusion, that the devices we are talking about, are by their very nature cloud based or locked down.
After all we want to see a market for small computie talkie thingies, which run a completely local Free Software stack independent of proprietary services. We must make clear that this is technically possible, despite claims to the contrary by some vendors.
I've also heard them be referred to as "dumbphones" (which only plays into the problem Hugo was addressing) and "feature phones", which is OK I guess.
The word "feature phone" is increasingly often used to name dumbed down smartphones, that are locked up to run only one application, most often a Facebook interface in particular. Fortunately we don't see many of those in Europe or the US. Unfortunately there are a lot of those elsewhere, or so I hear.
Daniel Pocock:
Ok, so "smart" is convenient marketing but if we want to refer to such a phone, as distinct from a legacy mobile, just using the word "mobile" may not be sufficient
Is there any other terms that could be used?
I personally just say "telephone" or "phone", and people just understand what I mean. I always felt uneasy about calling them "smart", but I don't think inventing a different word is really good policy. We did it several time, and none of our special, politically-meaningful name hit the masses.
Using strange words makes the talk weaker. Using "phone" sounds perfectly normal. Sometimes saying something like "the typical modern telephone" helps making the context clear, but at least where I live everybody has a clear idea of what is the "phone" in their pocket. Sometimes I show mine that is older, but sometimes I refrain from this, because it may damage my credibility more than it helps my discussion.
"mobile device" includes a lot of stuff, from tablets to gps loggers. People who talks about the mobile market usually are concerned about power consumption; reusing the clause to talk about phones can be confusing with some audiences. And explaining "when i say mobile I mean high-level telephones" puts the speaker in a bad corner: anybody who needs uncommon language to make a point, can't make a strong one.
/alessandro